Get Package

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: null means unlimited for quota and limits, email_accounts excludes the system mailbox, and a 404 has a defined meaning. Only edge behaviors such as permissions failures beyond the reseller-auth note are left unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences ordered by importance: what is returned, then authentication constraint, then error semantics. The parenthetical null definitions are dense but each earns its place; there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite being a single-parameter read tool, the definition covers the two things an agent can actually get wrong — the reseller authentication mode and interpreting nulls/404. An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the remaining need is met.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter already documents its pattern (letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens). The description's detail is about returned fields rather than the name argument, so it adds nothing meaningful beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one package's settings') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (quota_gb, domains, email_accounts, email_forwarders, domain_pointers). The singular 'one package' combined with the sibling name list_packages makes the scope distinction obvious without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear preconditions for use: it is a reseller-level operation and must be called authenticated as the reseller rather than while impersonating a user, plus what a 404 implies. It stops short of explicitly naming list_packages as the alternative for enumerating packages, so it is context-rich but lacks explicit alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.